Classification of Goods

Supreme Court settles classification of Chewing Tobacco and Zarda for Excise Duty: Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad vs. M/S Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 (20 October 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 11A, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4A, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Classification of Goods, Excise Duty

Supreme Court Clarifies Excise Duty on Chewing Tobacco and Zarda: Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 951 Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Aravind Kumar, J. Can a product labeled as “flavored chewing tobacco” be classified differently for excise duty purposes if it contains similar […]

Supreme Court settles classification of Chewing Tobacco and Zarda for Excise Duty: Commr. Of Cen. Exc. Ahmedabad vs. M/S Urmin Products & Ors. (2023) INSC 951 (20 October 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023)

/ Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 85, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 90, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section XVI, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CASE TYPE: Customs and Excise. Case Name: CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. & CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Harman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 29 March

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023)

/ Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 85, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 90, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section XVI, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CASE TYPE: Customs Law Case Name: CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and CCE vs. M/S Harman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 29

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Classification of All-in-One Desktop Computers under Central Excise Tariff Act: Hewlett Packard India vs. Commissioner of Customs (2023)

/ Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section 4, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section 4A, Classification of Goods, Customs and Excise Law, Judges, Portability, Surya Kant, Tariff Item 8471, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Clarifies Classification of All-in-One Desktop Computers under Central Excise Tariff Act LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of Automatic Data Processing Machines (ADPs) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. CASE TYPE: Customs and Excise Law Case Name: Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva Judgment Date: 17 January 2023

Supreme Court Clarifies Classification of All-in-One Desktop Computers under Central Excise Tariff Act: Hewlett Packard India vs. Commissioner of Customs (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Denies Modvat Credit on ‘Guide Car’ as Component of Coke Oven Battery: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (2022) INSC 739 (16 September 2022)

/ Central Excise Rules, 1944, Central Excise Rules, 1944 with Rule 57Q, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Chapter 84, Classification of Goods, Judges, Krishna Murari, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court Denies Modvat Credit on ‘Guide Car’ as Component of Coke Oven Battery Date of the Judgment: 16 September 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 739 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J. Can a specialized vehicle used in a steel plant be considered a ‘component’ of a larger industrial unit, thus qualifying for tax

Supreme Court Denies Modvat Credit on ‘Guide Car’ as Component of Coke Oven Battery: Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs (2022) INSC 739 (16 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies Anardana: Customs Duty Dispute Resolved (2022)

/ Bela M. Trivedi, Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section 0813, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section 1209, Import Policy, Judges, Sanjiv Khanna

Supreme Court Classifies Anardana: Customs Duty Dispute Resolved (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of dried pomegranate seeds (anardana) for customs duty. CASE TYPE: Customs and Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Amritsar vs. M/s D.L. Steels Etc. Judgment Date: 11th July 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 11th July 2022 Citation: Civil

Supreme Court Classifies Anardana: Customs Duty Dispute Resolved (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles classification of car mats: Textile Floor Coverings vs. Vehicle Accessories (2020)

/ Aniruddha Bose, Central Excise Law, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section 57, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Section 87, Classification of Goods, Deepak Gupta, Judges, Textile Floor Coverings, Vehicle Parts and Accessories

Supreme Court Classifies Car Mats Under Textile Floor Coverings, Not Vehicle Accessories LEGAL ISSUE: Whether car mats should be classified as “textile floor coverings” or as “parts and accessories” of motor vehicles. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Law Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III vs. M/S. Uni Products India Ltd. Judgment Date: May 1, 2020

Supreme Court settles classification of car mats: Textile Floor Coverings vs. Vehicle Accessories (2020) Read Post »

Coconut Oil Classification: Supreme Court Divided on Excise Duty for Small Packaging (April 13, 2018)

/ Central Excise, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Heading 1513, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 with Heading 3305, Central Excise with Chapter 15, Central Excise with Chapter 33, Classification of Goods, Judges, R. Banumathi, Ranjan Gogoi

Coconut Oil Classification: Supreme Court Divided on Excise Duty LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of coconut oil for excise duty purposes based on packaging size. CASE TYPE: Central Excise Case Name: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: April 13, 2018 Introduction Date of the Judgment: April 13, 2018 Citation: Not

Coconut Oil Classification: Supreme Court Divided on Excise Duty for Small Packaging (April 13, 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles classification of electric fans under Central Excise Act: Khaitan Electrical Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (06 August 2003)

/ B.N. Srikrishna, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Tariff Item No. 33, Classification of Goods, Excise Duty, G.P. Mathur, Judges, S. Rajendra Babu

Introduction Date of the Judgment: 06 August 2003 Citation: 2003 Supp(2) SCR 268 Judges: S. Rajendra Babu, B.N. Srikrishna, G.P. Mathur Are ‘multi-purpose’ electric fans, capable of being used as both table and cabin fans, to be classified based on their primary design and intended use? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in

Supreme Court settles classification of electric fans under Central Excise Act: Khaitan Electrical Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise (06 August 2003) Read Post »

Scroll to Top